Yes we do. The different times are for different missiles, and different targets. North Korea has more than one missile, and not all missiles are the
same. To reach the east coastthey would use a Hwasong-15. It would take roughly 40 minutes to get there. To reach Hawaii, they could use a Hwasong-10,
and it would take 10-15 minutes. Guam or Japan, they can use IRBMs instead, which changes flight time again.

Because it's 56% against one inbound missile, with 0-1 decoys. They have yet to do a realistic test involving more than one missile, with multiple
decoys. They've been flight testing for something like 25 years, and still aren't ready for realistic testing.

didn't Saudi Arabia shoot down two missiles (not at the same time) recently? im almost certain the Saudis use our patriot missle defense, and i know
the rebels missile is far from a nuclear icbm... but does it not give a little "hope" that our systems work?

Very slowly. They suspended tests for several years to rework and upgrade some of the sub systems involved. I think they recently did a non kill test,
but haven't checked the updated schedule on tests.

Very slowly. They suspended tests for several years to rework and upgrade some of the sub systems involved. I think they recently did a non kill test,
but haven't checked the updated schedule on tests.

assuming its a "one on one" game between ICBM and defense missile, what does a good defense missile need? just outright speed and mobility to be able
to "catch " the ICBM and detonate by it or actually hit it? correct me if im wrong but ICBM are fast as f!@# but have poor mobility?

The system uses a hit to kill system. The missile carries a kill vehicle that's fairly maneuverable, that hits the incoming warhead, causing it to
destroy itself. The latest version is the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. They did do a kill test last year, and it succeeded.

They're currently working on the MOKV, which will be capable of hitting multiple objects with one missile.

originally posted by: TreetopControl
Even with a 50% reliability, if you launched three interceptors at one actual target, you would have a 100% chance of intercepting and destroying it
(statistically). The actual success rate is much higher, so I personally am not to worried about it. Plus, the systems will get better and better
after each test, whether they are successful or not. You learn more about a system by examining the failures than you do with a success. The more
shots the better... lol

I disagree.

You would have a good chance, however, not 100%.

If I flip a coin, I most certainly can land heads or tails three times consecutively, which would seem to dispute the 100% accuracy with only three
interceptors, wouldn't you agree?

MTUBY

No such thing as 100%. Also consider these are scheduled tests. The real deal would happen in absolute panic and disorder. Shave off 80% of any
probability.

originally posted by: TreetopControl
Even with a 50% reliability, if you launched three interceptors at one actual target, you would have a 100% chance of intercepting and destroying it
(statistically). The actual success rate is much higher, so I personally am not to worried about it. Plus, the systems will get better and better
after each test, whether they are successful or not. You learn more about a system by examining the failures than you do with a success. The more
shots the better... lol

I disagree.

You would have a good chance, however, not 100%.

If I flip a coin, I most certainly can land heads or tails three times consecutively, which would seem to dispute the 100% accuracy with only three
interceptors, wouldn't you agree?

MTUBY

No such thing as 100%. Also consider these are scheduled tests. The real deal would happen in absolute panic and disorder. Shave off 80% of any
probability.

just to clarify, what changes the game between the mentioned IRBM and MRBM versus an ICBM? why is it harder to hit ICBM? is it the fact that the ICBM
travels faster, higher and further?

Any missile attack would be a surprise attack. It would depend entirely on the types of missiles, flight time, and ground sensors.

The GBM is designed to hit the incoming missiles before they begin the terminal phase, hence the Midcourse in the name. The missile isn't quite
as fast during that portion of the flight. To counter that, the missile deploys decoys to surround the warheads each missile carries. The missile and
ground based sensors have to differentiate between the decoys and live warheads.

When I think of the speeds involved and the size of a missile, my guess is this has always been a pipe dream.
the only time using current technology to shoot down an ICBM is before it reaches the upper atmosphere.
If you don't get it shortly after it leaves the platform your out of luck.

If ANY country were to fire a few hundred ICBM's at america, my guess is 80% of them would hit the main land.

No missile defense system is designed to stop a large scale attack. We currently have less than 80 interceptors. I think the number is closer to 50.
But it is designed to stop a rogue state attack, or a limited exchange. In an all up, launch everything you've got exchange, no one is stopping more
than a few of them.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
How can we reassure Americans that our military is capable of shooting down enemy ballistic missiles, if we keep hearing about these failed tests?
First, the Hawaiian missile warning debacle and now another failed ballistic missile intercept test at the Aegis Ashore missile defense station in
Hawaii. It has been reported in the past, that since 2002, we've spent nearly $40 billion dollars on our nation's missile defense system. For 2018,
Trump's administration authorized $10.5 billion dollars for the Missile Defense Agency, an increase of $2.6 billion above the Pentagon's initial
request. How reliable would our missile defense system be in real world situations? Do we have alternative measures to protect this nation
from enemy missile theats?

The US Navy reportedly conducted a failed ballistic missile intercept test on Wednesday, the second failed test involving a SM-3 Block IIA in
a year.

If confirmed, the test would be the second time this year that the missile, made by Raytheon, failed to intercept its target during tests. The
last failure happened in July of last year, and was blamed on a sailor accidentally entering data that identified the target as a friendly, causing
the missile to self-destruct.

The failure comes amid high tensions between the US and North Korea. Defense officials told CNN that they would not publicly discuss the
failed launch, in part because of "sensitivities surrounding North Korea."

If you read jimstones blog he will tell the Hawaiian missile was in fact real and that flashes high in the sky were seen to different witnesses 100
miles apart. He will also tell you the 39 minute dealy was spent taking out the Israli Dolphone 2 missle that launched it.

Its purpose was to blame NK and so force Trump to attack NK. Iran would go into bat for NK so then the US would have to take out Iran for Israel.

Pure BS. No one saw an interceptor launched, which would have had to come from California or Alaska. No, they couldn't have been launched from a sub,
or a ship before we go that route either. Utterly unsurprising he'd blame Israel though. It also would have taken a hell of a lot longer than 38
minutes to kill the sub he claimed did it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.